S v Mofokeng and Another (306/91) [1991] ZASCA 176 (28 November 1991)

S v Mofokeng and Another (306/91) [1991] ZASCA 176 (28 November 1991)

The court held that, although the attack on the farmhouse was premeditated and involved armed violence, there were reasonably possible mitigating factors. These included the lack of direct intention to kill, uncertainty as to which appellant inflicted the fatal wound, and the absence of prior convictions. The appellants were not hardened criminals and their conduct suggested amateurism rather than calculated brutality. The new statutory regime required the court to weigh these factors and consider the general objectives of sentencing. The court found that lengthy imprisonment, rather than the death penalty, was appropriate. Accordingly, the death sentences were set aside and replaced with...

Citation
[1991] ZASCA 176
Parties
Appellant: Frans Mofokeng; Appellant: Anthony Mokgele; Respondent: The State
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 November 1991
Case Number
306/91
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
Appeals against sentence upheld; death sentences set aside and replaced with imprisonment.
Judges
Smalberger, Nicholas, Krieger
Legal Topics
Murder Sentencing, Death Penalty, Mitigating Factors, Common Purpose, Aggravating Circumstances
Criminal Law Murder Sentencing Death Penalty Mitigating Factors Common Purpose Aggravating Circumstances

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frans Mofokeng

Appellant

Anthony Mokgele

Appellant

The State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the death sentences imposed on the appellants should be upheld under the amended Criminal Law Amendment Act No 107 of 1990.
  2. 2 Whether mitigating factors exist that preclude the imposition of the death penalty.
  3. 3 Whether the sentences for murder should run concurrently with sentences for other related offences.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, although the attack on the farmhouse was premeditated and involved armed violence, there were reasonably possible mitigating factors. These included the lack of direct intention to kill, uncertainty as to which appellant inflicted the fatal wound, and the absence of prior convictions. The appellants were not hardened criminals and their conduct suggested amateurism rather than calculated brutality. The new statutory regime required the court to weigh these factors and consider the general objectives of sentencing. The court found that lengthy imprisonment, rather than the death penalty, was appropriate. Accordingly, the death sentences were set aside and replaced with...

Court Disposition

Appeals against sentence upheld; death sentences set aside and replaced with imprisonment.

Orders

  • The sentences of death imposed on both appellants are set aside.
  • Each appellant is sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for murder, of which 14 years are to be served concurrently with the sentences imposed by the trial court on the other counts.